That's racist!

[DanaC]

Way to spectacularly miss the point ...

A new Banksy mural showing a group of pigeons holding anti-immigration banners has been destroyed following a complaint the work was "racist".

The mural in Clacton-on-Sea - where a by-election is due to take place following the local MP's defection to UKIP [anti-immigration and anti-europe etc]- appeared this week.

Nigel Brown, communications manager for the council, said: "The site was inspected by staff who agreed that it could be seen as offensive and it was removed this morning in line with our policy to remove this type of material within 48 hours.

"We would obviously welcome an appropriate Banksy original on any of our seafronts and would be delighted if he returned in the future."

Could be seen as offensive by numpties - and I am sure the artist will be rushing to grace your seafront with something inoffensive and impossible to misconstrue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-29446232

This is the mural - clearly a dig at anti-immigration protestors - if anything it is anti-racist:

[glatt]

Do you think that it's possible an anti-immigrant person saw that it painted them in a bad light, so they called in the complaint so it would be taken down?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by glatt

Do you think that it's possible an anti-immigrant person saw that it painted them in a bad light, so they called in the complaint so it would be taken down?

I agree glatt. I saw the image and before I read your comment, I thought, "what he's saying is 'I got mine, piss off.'" What I see here is "I'm offended that the hypocrisy of my position is being displayed in such an unflattering way! Take that down!". But the problem is, to paraphrase Undertoad, that doesn't fit in the checkbox.

The mistaken belief/bad policy that people have a legally enforceable right to be be free from being offended is the source of the problem here. I don't like being offended (though some clearly do), I don't like being offensive (though some clearly do), but since it's such a subjective condition, it's impractical if not impossible avoid. I like our First Amendment freedom, and I think it's a good model.

[DanaC]

Unfortunately, freedom of speech doesn't generally run to grafitti - which this is. So the council are within their rights to remove any grafitti that appears on public property (in this case a council owned public convenience). I would imagine that grafitti isn't protected under the First Amendment either.

Most councils don't remove Banksy grafitti - and there are other artists whose graffiti tends to get left alone. In this case it was only removed because ofthe complaint - but legallythey could have removed it anyway purely on the grounds that it is grafitti.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by DanaC

--snip
In this case it was only removed because ofthe complaint
--snip

You make my point.

[DanaC]

Not really - you seemed to suggest that the First Amendment would have protected it? But it's there absolutely on sufferance of the owners of the wall on which it has been painted, without permission from that owner. Justbecause their reason for removing it is dubious - doesn't change their right to that removal for whatever reason.

Now - had it been hanging in a gallery and the council insisted it be removed - that would be an infringement of the artist's right to free expression.

[BigV]

THIS is racist.

White Ohio Woman Sues Over Sperm From Black Donor

An Ohio woman has sued a Chicago-area sperm bank after she became pregnant with sperm donated by a black man instead of a white man as she and her partner had intended.

The woman is seeking damages and wants to ensure the sperm bank doesn't make a similar mistake again.

Within days of their wedding in New York, Jennifer Cramblett and Amanda Zinkon had become pregnant with the donor sperm. In April 2012, five months into her pregnancy, Cramblett, 36, called Midwest Sperm Bank LLC outside Chicago to reserve sperm from the same donor in the hope that Zinkon, 29, would someday also have a child.

That's when Cramblett received some disturbing news, says a lawsuit filed Monday against Midwest Sperm Bank in Cook County, Illinois: She learned from a sperm bank employee that she had been inseminated with sperm from the wrong donor.

Cramblett said they had chosen sperm from a man known as No. 380, a white donor. The sperm used for insemination came from No. 330, a black donor, she said.

"How could they make a mistake that was so personal?" Cramblett said during a telephone interview on Wednesday.

According to the lawsuit, her excitement about the pending birth was replaced with "anger, disappointment and fear."

"They took a personal choice, a personal decision and took it on themselves to make that choice for us out of pure negligence," Cramblett said.

...

The lawsuit said they had moved from Akron to Uniontown for better schools and to be closer to Cramblett's family. She said that as a lesbian she has felt the sting of prejudice but doesn't know what it's like to be mistreated because of skin color.

The lawsuit says Cramblett also is worried about how Payton will be treated in her "all-white, and often unconsciously insensitive family."

It's kind of bizarre, isn't it? I can see the woman wanting sperm from a man who's skin resembles her own. But there are a couple of other remarks in the story that I find dissonant.

1 -- She's in a same sex relationship (Jennifer and Amanda, both might want babies from the same donor). Her concern about the negative reaction from her family to the parentage of the baby but there's no mention of their reaction to her same sex relationship. That's some selective enlightenment.

2 -- Speaking of her family, how can they be "often unconsciously insensitive"? I mean, I get that some people are dense *and* rude. But if you already know that, how can that stay the same? Certainly something can give there. Unconsciousness can become consciousness, often can become infrequent, insensitive can become sensitive. And if it can't, why pursue it unless you're Don Quixote?

3 -- She says she's experienced the sting of prejudice as a lesbian but is oblivious to the fact that she's doing the same thing because of skin color. ???

4 -- I rolled my eyes at the way she expressed her outrage: "they took it on themselves to make that [her] choice out of negligence." Oh boy. I think she's trying to shoehorn the word "negligence" in there; maybe there was negligence, maybe she feels it's important to her case. But that's not the same as actively taking away something. I note that the facility does not have electronic records, meaning that mistaking "#380" and "#330" is easier to imagine.

Almost certainly a mistake. Probably negligent. Understandably regrettable. Definitely prejudiced. Hardly fatal.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Not really - you seemed to suggest that the First Amendment would have protected it? But it's there absolutely on sufferance of the owners of the wall on which it has been painted, without permission from that owner. Justbecause their reason for removing it is dubious - doesn't change their right to that removal for whatever reason.

Now - had it been hanging in a gallery and the council insisted it be removed - that would be an infringement of the artist's right to free expression.

Let me try again.

Two points here, it's graffiti and it has a perceived meaning.

As graffiti, the content notwithstanding, the property owner has the right to remove it. The end.

As to the meaning, I believe in the freest possible range of expression. Not anarchy, not unlimited "free speech". Words have power and power should be used with control. What I *don't believe* should be a control is a legal prohibition from giving offense. I don't think there is a right to be unoffended.

This is not a simple situation. Language is complex, people are complex. We have reasonable laws against slander and libel and pornography and such. What I don't think is a good threshold for the exercise of state power is "I am offended, make that stop."

Now, to the mural.

I don't think the message of the mural rises to the level of pornography, libel, defamation, etc. I don't see anything objectionable, I mean legally actionable in the message of the mural.

I can see that someone might dislike the message, or dislike the effect the message would have on other people, sure. Not in an illegal way though. Not enough to justify taking it down. Imagine that same mural was painted on a billboard, a space specifically designed for a big sign, a deliberate, public visual communication medium. I would think it should be allowed.

Same message, down here on the side of my building? I can easily see that someone would want it removed. Even it it said "I Kittens!!!", I might want that removed.

Bottom line: I think we agree.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Blackbirds hate Greenbirds.

[tw]

Sarcasm is racist and therefore is illegal.

Is sarcasm a felony or only a misdemeanor?

Are there statutes of limitation for this crime?

Good thing one of those birds was not named Mohammed. Otherwise we would have religioius extremists bombing the town. And fatahs that justify such attacks. Then we would have to declare war on some nation on the other side of the world. All because of sarcasm.

[infinite monkey]

"The awkward moment when your sarcasm is so advanced people actually think you are stupid."

(found online)

[classicman]

"The awkward moment when your stupidity is so advanced people actually think you are sarcastic."

[Gravdigr]